4 ms·

According to Sci-Hub’s operator, losing access to Cloudflare is not “critical,” but it may “cause a short pause in website operation.” There is some kind of we

According to Sci-Hub’s operator, losing access to Cloudflare is not “critical,” but it may “cause a short pause in website operation.” There is some kind of weird disconnect between the reality of distributed communications, and people/companies who seem to think that they have a prayer of stopping them. You’d think that the near implosion of the music industry would habpve be a clue though. Where there is demand and anti-consumer practices, there will be piracy. Is it just that people making these decisions are ignorant, or emotional? Does anyone know?

lotyrin 9y ago
Isn't it rational to hold on as hard as you can, to as much as you can, for as long as you can? The old models of commerce are so lucrative that adapting early to the sustainable models comes at a serious cost. Imagine the area under the curve, and how much money that adds up to, if we went from a market with CDs and DVDs and happy cable subscribers to Spotify and Netflix and internet-only broadband as they are today overnight instead of over the course of the years.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  I see your and other poster’s points. I suppose that I let morality and rationality mix in my assessment of Elsevier’s behavior, with predictably confusing results. Yes, it is rational to fight for so much money and power, even if it’s just for another quarter. The fact that I despise that behavior doesn’t change the rationale behind it. Thanks.
- the8472 9y ago
  > Isn't it rational to hold on as hard as you can, to as much as you can, for as long as you can? Depends on just exactly how rational you want to be. If your planning horizon is quarterly and annual numbers it makes perfect sense. If you want your company still do business in the coming decades then holding on and denying change can make you blind to the necessary adaptions.
  - mr_spothawk 9y ago
    > your planning horizon is quarterly I think their planning horizon is Retirement
csydas 9y ago
I really hate to sound like I'm defending Elsevier, but is it really unreasonable to assume that a large corporation that has built itself on an entire multibillion dollar company would be opposed to being toppled by piracy? I am 100% for Sci-Hub; I think it and sites like Arxiv are the natural evolution of professional journals and the future of academic publications. But I do understand why Elsevier is fighting this. It's not a disconnect, it's not like they don't see the writing on the wall, they just want secure their benefits as long as they can and enjoy the good life while it lasts. If their lawyers succeed, then there's no worry, the party continues. If they fail, at least they have plenty to rest on. If they're going to lose it all by not fighting, then it makes perfect sense to bet it all by fighting, because with Sci-hub and distributed systems (Tor, bit torrent), there is no winning in the long run. At least, not living with the revenue they are now. So you don't have to be ignorant or emotional to make such a decision, you just have to make a calculated gamble and figure out which is going to hurt the least in the long run all things considered.
- syshum 9y ago
  >> is it really unreasonable to assume that a large corporation that has built itself on an entire multibillion dollar company would be opposed to being toppled by piracy? That position is not what is "unreasonable", their existence is what is unreasonable. The fact that a company like Elsevier needs to be toppled by piracy at all is unreasonable. The legal framework that has allowed Elsevier to profit from public research is unreasonable >>But I do understand why Elsevier is fighting this. I also understand why a serial killer would fight going to prison, that does not make the serial killer reasonable, ethical or just >>If their lawyers succeed, then there's no worry, the party continues. I disagree here, if their lawyers succeed then they do a great disservice to humanity, and further entrench copyright law, possibly even expanding it with legal precedent
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    Full +1 with you on this one. The core problem seems to me that ethics has way too low impact on university courses, no matter if in STEM, finance, law or everything else. For example, it is certainly justified for a lawyer to defend a serial killer (after all the right to representation in court is a basic human right, or at least should be) but a company has no moral right to legal assistance. No lawyer is bound by code or law to assist a company - but many do because of individual profit and ignore the loss that society has to shoulder.
stfwn 9y ago
> You’d think that the near implosion of the music industry would have been a clue though. Where there is demand and anti-consumer practices, there will be piracy. Is it just that people making these decisions are ignorant, or emotional? Does anyone know? Wow. That is harsh. The current state of music is that artists need about 4 million Spotify plays per month to make minimum wage ($1160) [1]. That's assuming the artist does not have to share the revenue with anyone and not counting the time needed to break even on the initial investment (if you even manage to break even before the recording is 'old' and you're up for a new one). Realistically there is no money in recorded music anymore except for the John Mayers and Taylor Swifts, so nothing has been solved in that industry and there is no 'clue' to get. There was a legitimate source of income, then technology devaluated the product to oblivion. It's not worthy of damnation that those in an industry that is being levelled with the ground are caught off guard and attempt to fix their problems. It would do us good to empathise with the people in these industries, because there are going to be a heck of a lot of them in the coming years. If we value the product of their labor we should want to offer them an alternative source of income instead of berating them. [1]: https://informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/ https://informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-ar...
- chx 9y ago
  > Realistically there is no money in recorded music anymore except for the John Mayers and Taylor Swifts, so nothing has been solved in that industry and there is no 'clue' to get. Have you seen Patreon?
  - stfwn 9y ago
    > Have you seen Patreon? Patreon, Bandcamp and Tunecore collectively pay out about $25 million per month [1]. That's minimum wage for 21 000 people, assuming each artist gets an equal share (which they obviously don't). This doesn't seem like a lot to me. [1]: http://musically.com/2015/02/16/what-are-musicians-making-from-patreon/ http://musically.com/2015/02/16/what-are-musicians-making-fr...
    - 9y ago
revelation 9y ago
I mean, it was pretty clear the music industry would continue in one form or another. There is some form of value add. But science publishers? These guys haven't made an honest buck in decades now. Their business is entirely due to inertia and regulatory capture. The short to medium term goal of all stakeholders is their entire elimination.
matt4077 9y ago
In a society governed by the rule of law, nobody should have to defend their decision to avail themselves of the protections these laws offer. If large parts of the population disagree with a business model, they have the collective power to change it. As a former scientist, I can't wait to desecrate Elsevier's grave. But I'm still uneasy about the prospect of people taking matters into their own hands simply because their technical capabilities are more advanced than those of their opponents. There are also journals, such as Science, that finance the valuable non-profit foundations publishing them. Of course, this is to a large extend the fault of scientists and university administrators themselves, because they have all the power to refuse to publish in for-profit closed-access publications (as they are apparently doing in Germany.) And the political process in the US is basically broken. But look at other examples of the same principle, and you might find one where you land on the other side: The Federal Reserve seems the safer bet vis-a-vis the libertarians that jumped on Bitcoin to topple it. Uber has a litany of problems from their "rule-breaking DNA". Or, for the political right: should "illegal" immigrants receive citizenship simply for evading border checks?
- mr_spothawk 9y ago
  > a society governed by the rule of law * stifled laugh * our actions are governed by the reality of enforcement. our planning is governed by the expectation of enforcement of the rule of law. this should be apparent by now.
wmf 9y ago
Even if a company knows that they are dying, there's a lot of money to be made by postponing that death as long as possible.

lotyrin 9y ago

Isn't it rational to hold on as hard as you can, to as much as you can, for as long as you can? The old models of commerce are so lucrative that adapting early to the sustainable models comes at a serious cost. Imagine the area under the curve, and how much money that adds up to, if we went from a market with CDs and DVDs and happy cable subscribers to Spotify and Netflix and internet-only broadband as they are today overnight instead of over the course of the years.

IntronExon 9y ago
I see your and other poster’s points. I suppose that I let morality and rationality mix in my assessment of Elsevier’s behavior, with predictably confusing results. Yes, it is rational to fight for so much money and power, even if it’s just for another quarter. The fact that I despise that behavior doesn’t change the rationale behind it. Thanks.
the8472 9y ago
> Isn't it rational to hold on as hard as you can, to as much as you can, for as long as you can? Depends on just exactly how rational you want to be. If your planning horizon is quarterly and annual numbers it makes perfect sense. If you want your company still do business in the coming decades then holding on and denying change can make you blind to the necessary adaptions.
- mr_spothawk 9y ago
  > your planning horizon is quarterly I think their planning horizon is Retirement

csydas 9y ago

I really hate to sound like I'm defending Elsevier, but is it really unreasonable to assume that a large corporation that has built itself on an entire multibillion dollar company would be opposed to being toppled by piracy? I am 100% for Sci-Hub; I think it and sites like Arxiv are the natural evolution of professional journals and the future of academic publications. But I do understand why Elsevier is fighting this. It's not a disconnect, it's not like they don't see the writing on the wall, they just want secure their benefits as long as they can and enjoy the good life while it lasts. If their lawyers succeed, then there's no worry, the party continues. If they fail, at least they have plenty to rest on. If they're going to lose it all by not fighting, then it makes perfect sense to bet it all by fighting, because with Sci-hub and distributed systems (Tor, bit torrent), there is no winning in the long run. At least, not living with the revenue they are now. So you don't have to be ignorant or emotional to make such a decision, you just have to make a calculated gamble and figure out which is going to hurt the least in the long run all things considered.

syshum 9y ago
>> is it really unreasonable to assume that a large corporation that has built itself on an entire multibillion dollar company would be opposed to being toppled by piracy? That position is not what is "unreasonable", their existence is what is unreasonable. The fact that a company like Elsevier needs to be toppled by piracy at all is unreasonable. The legal framework that has allowed Elsevier to profit from public research is unreasonable >>But I do understand why Elsevier is fighting this. I also understand why a serial killer would fight going to prison, that does not make the serial killer reasonable, ethical or just >>If their lawyers succeed, then there's no worry, the party continues. I disagree here, if their lawyers succeed then they do a great disservice to humanity, and further entrench copyright law, possibly even expanding it with legal precedent
- mschuster91 9y ago
  Full +1 with you on this one. The core problem seems to me that ethics has way too low impact on university courses, no matter if in STEM, finance, law or everything else. For example, it is certainly justified for a lawyer to defend a serial killer (after all the right to representation in court is a basic human right, or at least should be) but a company has no moral right to legal assistance. No lawyer is bound by code or law to assist a company - but many do because of individual profit and ignore the loss that society has to shoulder.

stfwn 9y ago

> You’d think that the near implosion of the music industry would have been a clue though. Where there is demand and anti-consumer practices, there will be piracy. Is it just that people making these decisions are ignorant, or emotional? Does anyone know? Wow. That is harsh. The current state of music is that artists need about 4 million Spotify plays per month to make minimum wage ($1160) [1]. That's assuming the artist does not have to share the revenue with anyone and not counting the time needed to break even on the initial investment (if you even manage to break even before the recording is 'old' and you're up for a new one). Realistically there is no money in recorded music anymore except for the John Mayers and Taylor Swifts, so nothing has been solved in that industry and there is no 'clue' to get. There was a legitimate source of income, then technology devaluated the product to oblivion. It's not worthy of damnation that those in an industry that is being levelled with the ground are caught off guard and attempt to fix their problems. It would do us good to empathise with the people in these industries, because there are going to be a heck of a lot of them in the coming years. If we value the product of their labor we should want to offer them an alternative source of income instead of berating them. [1]: https://informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/ https://informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-ar...

chx 9y ago
> Realistically there is no money in recorded music anymore except for the John Mayers and Taylor Swifts, so nothing has been solved in that industry and there is no 'clue' to get. Have you seen Patreon?
- stfwn 9y ago
  > Have you seen Patreon? Patreon, Bandcamp and Tunecore collectively pay out about $25 million per month [1]. That's minimum wage for 21 000 people, assuming each artist gets an equal share (which they obviously don't). This doesn't seem like a lot to me. [1]: http://musically.com/2015/02/16/what-are-musicians-making-from-patreon/ http://musically.com/2015/02/16/what-are-musicians-making-fr...
  - 9y ago

revelation 9y ago

I mean, it was pretty clear the music industry would continue in one form or another. There is some form of value add. But science publishers? These guys haven't made an honest buck in decades now. Their business is entirely due to inertia and regulatory capture. The short to medium term goal of all stakeholders is their entire elimination.

matt4077 9y ago

In a society governed by the rule of law, nobody should have to defend their decision to avail themselves of the protections these laws offer. If large parts of the population disagree with a business model, they have the collective power to change it. As a former scientist, I can't wait to desecrate Elsevier's grave. But I'm still uneasy about the prospect of people taking matters into their own hands simply because their technical capabilities are more advanced than those of their opponents. There are also journals, such as Science, that finance the valuable non-profit foundations publishing them. Of course, this is to a large extend the fault of scientists and university administrators themselves, because they have all the power to refuse to publish in for-profit closed-access publications (as they are apparently doing in Germany.) And the political process in the US is basically broken. But look at other examples of the same principle, and you might find one where you land on the other side: The Federal Reserve seems the safer bet vis-a-vis the libertarians that jumped on Bitcoin to topple it. Uber has a litany of problems from their "rule-breaking DNA". Or, for the political right: should "illegal" immigrants receive citizenship simply for evading border checks?

mr_spothawk 9y ago
> a society governed by the rule of law * stifled laugh * our actions are governed by the reality of enforcement. our planning is governed by the expectation of enforcement of the rule of law. this should be apparent by now.

wmf 9y ago

Even if a company knows that they are dying, there's a lot of money to be made by postponing that death as long as possible.